JimGant

If Mr U had assessable income -- had it been remitted to Thailand -- then it would be subject to Thai taxation, regardless of its final destination or purpose. But, yeah, if Mr T had a US bank account, to which Mr U transferred a gift into -- then Mr T's subsequent remittance of this gift to Thailand would be non assessable. Same as if I remitted an inheritance from Uncle Bob, or a loan from Aunt Agnus -- these monies are ALL NOT INCOME -- and, of course, therefore non assessable for Thai tax purposes.

Ok. But say it was a legitimate gift -- no strings attached to the recipient. Does this now make it tax exempt? Say you, the sender, is called into RD for a chat about your remittances. And you're a Yank. Your spreadsheet shows a military pension remittance; social security remittance; and a remittance from a pre 2024 savings account. All, per DTA and recent ruling, are non assessable income, to do with as you please, including gifting, loaning, and spending. Now, the last entry on your spreadsheet is a private pension remittance -- which, per DTA, is the exclusive taxation right of Thailand. But you have an asterisk next to it, stating: This is now non assessable income, because I gifted it to my neighbor somchai. What ruling would you show the RD clerk that makes it so? I certainly can't find any such animal.

Let's get our eyes back on the ball -- tho' it appears they never were on the ball.... First of all, the Thai gift tax has nothing to do with the source of the gift -- or whether or not it's a domestic transfer or an international transfer. Thai 'income tax on a gift' is just a tax on gift amounts over 10M (using as an example a friend as the recipient), which the recipient has to self-assess and is responsible for filing the related tax return. The sender can just be using the friend as an intermediary for receiving his (the sender's) money. Thus, no gift implied, no gift tax due (and in all cases, no tax question for the sender to ponder). The sender just shows up and collects from his friend, if being used as an intermediary. Again, the money could have been a domestic or international transfer. In both cases, there's a separate, completely unrelated question -- was that money subject to income tax (and, if so, have such taxes been paid). Or, for international transfers, were those transfers assessable for Thai tax purposes -- a question completely divorced for what those funds are later used for, be that a gift, a loan, daily expenditures, whatever. Yes, when I send a Wise of SWIFT transfer, they ask the purpose. But if I say "gift," this has no significance for anyone in Thailand -- it's to let the US IRS know that I might be subject to a US gift tax. So, again, there is no Thai tax angle on gifts for the sender -- only the recipient might have some tax obligation. The determination of assessable income is completely unrelated to the eventual use of that income.

The taxation character of a home country's pension remains when subject to a resident country's taxation -- at least in this example from the tech explanation of the UK-US DTA: This is a 'read between the lines' explanation, as you won't see anything so definitive in the actual treaty. And, since these technical explanations seem to be US generated, probably no such animal for an OZ-Thai tax treaty. But, recent OECD studies to modify their Model tax treaty examples, have introduced just such language as seen in this technical explanation. And this can be found on-line with a little research. Thus, you could have a notebook of why international flavor supports no taxation of Oz tax exempt pensions in Thailand. And Thailand is petitioning to become a OECD member -- doubtful, then, they'd piss on any OECD sanctioned argument. Bottom line: Don't declare your remitted Oz tax exempt pension as assessable income. Always give yourself the benefit of the doubt in gray area tax situations. Thus, in the unlikely event you're ever called in for a chat, your notebook will give your position credence. You might still be taxed -- but certainly no malfeasance to attach a penalty or fine to. Definitely worth the risk. Ask a Chartered Accountant, the Oz version of a US CPA. They'll know what I'm talking about.

Bottom line? I couldn't quite understand the thick accents.

Yes, but again it is the recipient, not the giver, who's on the hook for taxation above a certain amount of gift: Or ten million baht, for GF's. Nothing in this about how, why, or when taxation takes place for the amount gifted. Meaning, amounts of assessable income remitted to Thailand for the initial, or subsequent, purpose of being gifted -- are treated without consideration of their final gift purpose.

You're right. Good catch.

Yeah, seems like a doable filtering, er laundering scheme.

Of course there's no source -- this whole thread is mainly conjecture. And, actually, Eta's conjecture makes a lot of sense. Pretty impressive gut feeling, IMO.

So, TRD will use expensive resources to screen all farangs, not just tax residents -- in order to determine who's a tax resident, or a tourist, so they can then restrict their questions to just tax residents?

--then check with Immigration to see whether or not these high money folks actually stayed in Thailand for 180 days. And, also, whether their country's DTA with Thailand also excluded many categories of income as non assessable income. Blah, blah. Not to say a high remitter wouldn't draw attention -- and might actually end up paying for the time and effort. Or probably not... Can't really see any new action, but maybe a few random compliance audits. Nothing to lose any sleep over.

They've never said that. Assessable income, whether remitted to your bank account, your GF's bank account, a PO Box, or a shelter for soi dogs -- is still remitted assessable income, subject to Thai taxes, if it exceeds exemptions and allowances. Where folks are getting confused is -- unlike in the US (and I assume other Western countries), the gifter is the one who pays the gift tax (or gets a credit towards a final estate tax). And it is a gift tax, not income tax, on after-tax income, i.e., disposable income now inclusive in the estate. Thailand, however, apparently taxes the recipient, not the gifter: Thus, a gift to your GF is totally divorced from your taxability on this money -- that action is separate from the gifting action. Now, your GF is in an interesting situation. If she gave nothing of value for the receipt of that gift, then, yes, it is a gift -- and she'll have to file a personal income tax return to declare an amount over 10M baht. However, if she gave several really superb hum jobs, she gave value for the money received -- so now she has to declare the whole enchilada as income. In both situations, she's the one filing a tax return for the money you gave her, not you adding this on to any tax return you had to file. But if that gift you gave was assessable remitted income to Thailand -- you've got to declare it on a tax return, as it has no exclusionary aspects by later becoming a gift (or income for rendered services). Sorry, folks. The gift aspect doesn't seem to be a viable tax avoidance.

Did you actually have taxable income, i.e, assessable income above TEDA -- and thus actually paid income tax to Thailand? Just curious, because you've previously reported that you showed up at the TRD office, declared all your remitted income, and then asked them to discern which was assessable, and which wasn't. Wouldn't the prudent man keep TRD out of the self-assessment phase -- and just keep his self-assessment logic to himself, until the less than 1% chance of a knock on the door? Obviously, Thai RD never evaluated farang remittances for income applicability, under the old rules, since the fungibility of cash flow could certainly blur same-year remittances -- and what a waste of time and money to try and corner this blur. And, now, farangs can claim pre 2024 income as tax free remittances -- plus several DTA rulings exempting foreign income. No, the cost/benefit analysis says Thai RD is not going to hire 10000 new agents to question tens of thousands of farang non tax payers -- only to find out that there's no there there. Any new taxes under this new ruling will come from Thai fat cats, who under the old rule, could remit unlimited amounts under the later year rule. Now, Thai fat cats, who have no DTA exemptions to hide behind, will feel the sting. We've already seen, on one of these threads, where Thai RD can assess taxes, of their determination, in situations where 'too much remittance and not enough tax paid' occurs. This is where the new rule will probably bear fruit. Farangs aren't even an after thought, IMO.

....and ask for laundry fee reimbursements for their Hamas head rags.

Understandably so, since AI is not culturally sensitive to Thailand's monarchy system. But having said that, ask the average Thai on the street if he's upset that Thailand has some firm restrictions about large crowd gatherings on the street, particularly if those crowds are directed at certain restricted activities. Heck, even Singapore has more restrictions on crowd gatherings than does Thailand (and, yes, AI has directed itself against Singapore -- whose citizens, when factoring in reality, laugh it off). No, when you look at the freedoms Thailand actually has compared to those in the neighborhood (Cambodia, China, Burma, Laos, and Vietnam), life here, from a human rights standpoint, is quite ok. And, yes, you *do* need a certain degree of domestic real politik -- that drives the hand wringers nuts -- to preserve and promote daily harmony. Need a little more of that back on the campuses in the US. Sure, Thailand could probably cut some slack on youthful exuberation --as the young sometimes just don't know how good they actually have it, until they grow up and factor in reality. So, let the human rights long hairs moan and groan. Thailand is doing just fine, thank you -- again, when compared to the neighborhood.

My 1040 is a married joint return, so the line items are joint, thus not reflecting my portion. Thus, 1099-Rs submitted for each of my taxable items. 1040 submitted as a courtesy copy, but totally worthless in the math department. 1099-Rs totally accepted, with, of course, a cover letter of explanation. Also, only the previous year's tax data required -- no two year requirement, as had been mentioned somewhere. And, current year monthly pay statements, with a cover letter showing monthly payments multiplied by twelve, to arrive at annual amount (duh). Simple math exercise, totally acceptable to BoI.

Are you a US citizen? If so, why do you think your total tax bill, between both countries, will be higher than if the pre 2024 Thai tax rules were still in effect?

Which leads to the question: When does income deposited into a savings account -- become savings? For me, all my monthly income is deposited net into my savings account, after "withholding at source" taxes are removed. Thus, this income is now "after tax" income, or so called "disposable income." And, per Google (who else), disposable income is divvied up three ways: Expenditures; Investments; or Savings. So, after I use part of this money to pay bills, and part to send to my broker for investments -- what's left in the account is savings. And then I remit these savings to Thailand. Taxable by Thailand? Nope, as they're only interested in remitted foreign income, not savings. Obviously, such an observation could lead to a lively discussion with Thai RD authorities. But, I wonder -- since we've heard several iterations of the: "If home country taxes it, we're not interested in taxing it when remitted" -- that Thailand is just concluding that, yeah, if home country is taxing it, what we're seeing remitted is no longer income, but now savings. So, no longer assessable income. Anyway, one more conjecture on a boring day, on a 269 page thread. But, for Yanks, one more check mark in the plus column, that since all your income will be taxed by Uncle, that such income will have evolved to "savings" when remitted to Thailand. So, not assessable by Thailand. Yawn.

Don't ask a logical question -- if you can't stand a stupid answer.

Nice to see common sense brought into the equation.

Has anyone successfully done an annual report (TM95) by mail?

Nice. Tamps down the fear mongering that the uninitiated newbie might experience. Maybe you could equally mitigate the chance of this ever happening:

You never handed it to a waiter, who went in the back room to run it? Once they copy all the data on the card, they're good-to-go for online thievery. That's why it's recommended you blank out your CVV number, as it's not needed for "present" card purchases -- only "not present" (online) usage. Obviously, record that number somewhere before you obliterate it (I found permanent ink won't cover up the impression, thus you need to razor blade some plastic off). And, obviously, destroying your card won't stop online thievery, when somebody's already copied your card information. Need to report it immediately to the fraud dept of your bank, who will cancel it -- and any subsequent usage will be denied, and no further liability. Hate the idea of somebody able to empty my bank account, 'cause I have a debit card; credit cards definitely mo' betta.

Was he wearing a green Grab jacket? Hard to break old motorcycle habits of cutting everybody on the road off -- when you switch to four wheels.

Here's a copy of my email to BoI ref visa cancellation. And their reply. This was back in July: Their reply: So, advised to do nothing, I did nothing prior to attending my appointment. I guess, during somewhere leading up to the LTR visa stamp in my passport, some bureaucratic voodoo occurred, which I didn't witness, that made my extension vanish. Anyway, don't worry about having to make two trips to Bangkok. You're covered, I'm sure.